Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the content is static per contract version, hence the once-per-session call pattern, and it names the categories of guidance returned. It stops short of describing output shape, but an output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose and content inventory front-loaded and the calling discipline as the closing clause. Every clause carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and no parameters, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the prerequisite ordering relative to the extraction tool and the once-per-session caching rule. Slightly jargon-heavy ('measured routing discipline', 'dominant_form action table') but sufficient to decide to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. It correctly focuses on when and how often to call rather than on inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the versioned usage instructions for Document Map consumers') and enumerates the payload (binding rule, field semantics, dominant_form table, routing discipline). It is clearly distinguishable from the data-producing sibling datasheetvend_extract_document_map, which it names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit precondition and ordering ('Call once per session before working with maps from datasheetvend_extract_document_map') plus an explicit exclusion ('do not call repeatedly'). The alternative and the condition that targets it are both spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.